We, the Peoples of Europe, Got Roots!

Two and a half years ago I set out on a mission to find out what's wrong with the West today. One of the first ports of call on this mission was a wonderful little tome - "Without Roots" - a dialogue between Marcello Pera, President of the Italian Senate and Professor of Philosophy at the University of Pisa - and Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, as Pope Benedict XVI was known before his accession.

It acquainted me with the terms we have come to know so well by now: relativism, Postmodernism, false equivalence, subjectivism and reverse morality.

The book became an instant sensation in Italy. Pomo and self-declared boomer, EU Commissioner Margot Wallstrom, whose highest ethic consists in the truthiness "Make Love, Not War", lost no time dropping a sneer. The director of the European Monitoring Center on Racism and Xenophobia, Beate Winkler went as far as going on the record with the declaration that "people have boots, not roots!" - all, of course, in an effort to bend reality to the new Utopia of a borderless, multicultural empire as plugged by the Union.

Very revealing all, precisely what the Postmodernists wish us all to believe: that we are a people without a past (watch this Day by Day cartoon: Chris Muir gets it too), that we have no cultural or historical roots prior to the onset of the 1968 counter culture that abandoned all essentially modern values for anti-modern ones. George Orwell would have been proud.

It is for the same reason that history education has been reformed out of existence and children have no insight into culture-historical events, other than the revisionism that Nazism and Fascism are a form of Capitalism and that Leftism is the only proper form of Socialism.

We do not propose advancing either form of Socialism - Leftist or Rightist - but on the contrary, advocate fighting both its precursors. Because that is precisely where political and social thought leads once the primacies of individualism and equality are abandoned.

For the purpose of preserving the values of modernism and the Enlightenment, and for promoting the call that Americans have already answered when their Founding Fathers claimed the American politeia and put "We, the people ..." to paper in their Constitution, we are today launching a European grassroots movement, Roots! We, the Peoples of Europe ...

Our temporary home is a Ning social netroots platform that supports personal pages, blogs, videos, groups, a forum, photo albums and a slideshow for your personal favourites, an events calender, and soon also chat. So sign up, get your own badge, transfer your most cherished stuff to Roots! and let's use all those great features to debate the battle plan.

I am looking forward to see you on Roots! Let's get this continent on the road for the people, the European citizens, let's take this to street level ... Can't wait to meet you all!


View my page on Roots!

Pragmatist Olympics in the Terror Hive

Kathy Shaidle has published a damning article on Front Page Magazine, "Beijing: Munich or Berlin" on the state of affairs in communist China, host to the supposedly edifying event of the modern Olympic Games.

While isolating sports from the political context is one thing, and respecting the internal affairs of a sovereign nation another, the tacit acceptance of state terror and brutal oppression - let alone legitimizing it by appointing the perpetrator as an Olympic host - is far more serious. Experts assure us that the Chinese leaders interpret the selection of Beijing as the world's acknowledgement that it accepts the Communist Party (CCP) as the legitimate ruler of China.

It's what you get with the Pragmatist approach to evil ideologies. Pragmatism is one of the many offshoots of the Relativist branch of philosophy. Rejecting objective reality, it has dispensed with ethics, epistemology, as well as reason. Its other central tenet is that each and every idea, religion, or culture is equally valid from its own perspective (except the West's, which are uniquely evil - including this one?).

And so, Havana has become a respectable vacation destination for Europeans, while the press refer to the Castro brothers as misguided idealists - audacious rascals, on a par with the other murderous poster boy, Che.

The last few days, as the world mourned the death of Alexander Solzhenitsyn, the focus of Soviet crimes was on Stalin's atrocities rather than the evil of communist ideology itself. The Nobel Prize winner himself is derogatory referred to as a Nationalist - a direct insult in the Postmodern tranzy frame of reference.

- Caption: black satire by The People's Cube -

Ideas are untouchable, persons are fair game.
Denunciations of China's human rights record - while welcome - are directed at the symptoms (coercing individuals to comply to the will of the collective) instead of the evil system itself (communism).

In this 'morally neutral' atmosphere where the passing of judgment on any one's culture is anathema while pronouncing damnation on your own is mandatory, communist China enjoying the Olympic honours should come as no surprise. Such is the cynical state of the world.

The Epoch Times has published a series of nine columns, called the Nine Commentaries on the Chinese Communist Party, which represent the most detailed account yet of communist misrule in China, and what the consequences have been for the Chinese people and lovers of liberty throughout the world.

Skip the Bird's Nest opening ceremony on Friday and instead take note of the gruesome history on which the Chinese ideal of Rousseau's Agrarianism is built, a legacy legitimized by Western Postmodern Pragmatism.

Here's a excerpt from Kathy Shaidle's "Beijing: Munich or Berlin" from Front Page Magazine:


"Given the known facts about life in totalitarian Communist China, the choice of Beijing for the 2008 Games makes a mockery of the Olympic Charter, which claims to promote “a peaceful society concerned with the preservation of human dignity” and “respect for universal fundamental ethical principles.” This was immediately disproved when the Chinese, blatantly and arrogantly, celebrated their selection as host country with a fireworks display in Tiananmen Square, where thousands of young pro-democracy demonstrators were slaughtered in 1989. Dancers also performed below towering portraits of Mao Tse-tung, who murdered approximately 70 million Chinese in Communism’s name.

- Caption: Beijing 2008 Olympics bill board "One World, One Dream" - which one? -

“If we had known what was already taking place in Germany's camps in 1936 (...) the Olympics would not have taken place in Berlin.

”Ironically, given the number of pro-Tibet protests that marred this year’s Olympic torch relay, the IOC is now considering ending the 72-year-old tradition. But rather than extinguish this appealing custom, the IOC, and the rest of the world, should reevaluate, or at least stick to, its criteria for selecting host countries and be willing to learn from history.

Metropolis: the Pre-Dystopia of the Weimar Republic

Art Daily: "Lost Footage of "Metropolis" Film By Fritz Lang Is Found in Buenos Aires, Argentina"

The Pablo Ducrós Hicken Film Museum in Buenos Aires, Argentina has found in its archives a copy of the movie “Metropolis” directed in 1927 by Fritz Lang, with lost footage. The silent film was one of the most expensive ones (around $200 million dollars) and was cut heavily to make it more accessible. It was initially thought as a movie that would last two and a half hours. The footage that was found will add around 25 minutes to the film, but there will still be around five minutes missing. (...)

Metropolis is a science fiction film created by the Austrian-German director Fritz Lang. It was produced in Germany in the Babelsberg Studios and released in 1927. The screenplay was written in 1924 by Lang and his then wife, Thea von Harbou, and novelized by von Harbou in 1926.

It is set in a futuristic urban dystopia and examines a common science fiction theme of the day: the social crisis between workers and owners in capitalism. The film is set in the year 2026, in the extraordinary Gothic skyscrapers of a corporate city-state, the Metropolis of the title.

Society has been divided into two rigid groups: one of planners or thinkers, who live high above the earth in luxury, and another of workers who live underground toiling to sustain the lives of the privileged. The city is run by Johann 'Joh' Fredersen (Alfred Abel). >>>

IMDb has extensive documentation: slideshow, and 61 images.

The German interbellum, also known as the Weimar Republic, was initially dominated by Leftist revolutionary activities inspired by Russian Bolshevism. The terrified pragmatist 'third way' Governments of the time - which were characterized by ineffective compromizing and amoral pragmatism - thought they could cancel out Spartacist Leftist collectivist brutality by unleashing on it Rightist collectivist brutality, the Freicorps - remnants of the former Imperial paramilitaries.

A posting dated 8th February pictures the surrealism of the German Revolution that was the basis of German society at the time the film was produced, the chaos and decadence that shot the Hitler's National Socialist Workers Party to power just six years later.

The theme of the film is typical of the Marxist dialectic: the paranoid bipolar division of humanity in oppressors and oppressed, in this case the proletariat against a caste of city planners.

Objectivist author Leonard Peikoff in "The Ominous Parallels" has made a dramatic effort to collate the current cultural and political constellation with that of the Weimar Republic. He maps the underlying philosophical currents, which indeed partly overlap:

the peculiar paradox of relativist pragmatism with absolute dogmatism, and mystical subjectivism coupled with sexual permissiveness, all blanket-covered by the deeply ingrained sense of ethics in which individual sacrifice to the collective is the highest standard of human achievement. Pending ominous developments related to anti-human animal rights and its consequences for values, the parallel stops short at this moment in time.

Hidden Ideas Behind the Politics: Ideological Causality

My correspondent says that philosophers merely explain things after the fact. But what comes first, I ask? The event, or the idea? Do ideas not have consequences?

What comes first? B. Barack Obama's presidential campaign, or subjectivism? The Sokal hoax, or the notion that the senses are an unreliable source of knowledge because they can be tricked? Immanuel Kant or Massimo Vignelli's CuboSeat? The exception taken for rule, or malignant Narcissistic egocentrism.

In all the above it's the idea that has consequences in the physical world.

Surrealists and abstract artists are plain: they go straight to the subjective universe. But are we aware of the hidden political message behind works like Vignelli's, or for example Escher's?

The optic husslers come before the surrealists, telling us from an objective place that what we see is an illusion. They produce artistic renditions of the notion that our senses cannot be trusted. These eye-trick artists are the foot soldiers in the battle against reality. They 'prove' to us through their art that our senses are so dumb, they even fall for cheap parlor tricks like theirs.

And if that is the case, then objective knowledge is for ever beyond our grasp. What we take for real are actually subjective, personal versions of reality. Or per Kant - we create our personal universes in our heads, isolated forever from the illusion we take for reality.

Nor is it possible to have an opinion on one another's universes. Because by whose standards would we make such an objective judgment? This is impossible. There are no bad universes, or ugly universes, just different universes which perhaps we don't understand, coming from another universe as we do.

So here we can see that ideas have consequences. Kant's and Hegel's subjectivism is the cause of B. Barack Obama. Long live 'change' to 'progress,' the battle against reality goes on ... and half the world is buying ...

Update:

Want more subjective news? Here it is. And apparently it's not just that left people are nicer, subjectvists are beyond nice, "they are the nicest, most intelligent people we've found" >>>

N.B. It would seem that the message changes. It's getting easier by the minute: independent thinking isn't even a requirement anymore: "It's free, it's easy and everyone's doing it!" Ah, it's okay then ...

Demolished Heritage

If you happened to have read my post yesterday morning, you'll know what I've been up to. I went into town on assignment, hot on the trail of a building in distress. As it happens, it is actually no less than an entire community, and a place representing our very roots, that's in peril! Here's the related blog: "Dionysiou Areopagitou 17: A Monument in Danger".

To fully appreciate what we're dealing with, picture the following. The building concerned is a 1930's, Art Deco specimen, that is perfectly embedded in a classical Greek setting; it was built and designed by award winning, international artist and architect Vasilis Kouremenos, a friend of Pablo Picasso's. More details in this post.

It has recently been restored and the adorning marble relief work and mosaics are as fresh as if applied only yesterday. Some of the interior art work is simply exquisite: there's a slide show accessible here.

This perfect architectonic period piece flanks the road the Apostle Paul is said to have walked; it lies on the foot of the Acropolis mountain, in the heart of the old town of Athens. The buildings in this area are traditionally of the Neo-classical period. Some sadly have been abandoned by their impoverished owners and ran to seed in the course of two and half centuries; the vast majority that hasn't, have recently been restored to their former glory. It is a truly unique place, in the physical sense as well as historical and cultural.

It had to happen ... inevitably ... Postmodern politicians, planners and architects being what they are - the deconstructionists of a past and a place they revile and despise, having made its atomization the centre-piece of their vacuous lives - not content with dumping a linear glass monument to nihilism smack in the middle of this paradise - are now threatening the annex historical build-up with extinction.

It simply couldn't stand: deconstruction of the place that symbolizes the cradle of Western civilization, is to them the height of accomplishment. The challenge has long stood firm, taunting them to lift up their barbaric hands against her; at last she's succumbed to the relativist onslaught! The Postmodern oaf boasting his accomplishment can be viewed in the video embedded in yesterday's post.

The owners, occupants and a great number of other defenders of the remaining buildings in peril, are making the case for the proverbial line in sand that will not be crossed. No more! The excuse is too feeble for words: as if one demanding visitor, one exhausted tourist, would ever forfeit their refreshing cuppa or G&T after a long, hot haul with the spirits of the Parthenon ... because of an obstructed view!

Instead of the oaf adjusting his 'artistic efforts' to fit the environment in which it stands, the plan was of course all along to adjust the heritage to fit the nihilist design!

I'm begging any human being with a cultural or historical bone in his or her body, to sign the petition that will help the brave activists keeping the deconstructionists at bay. You can help stop the Postmodern wreckers by entering a short comment in the commentary box (blue coloured text at the bottom of the top post, titled Action - click on: ΣΧΟΛΙΑ).

With gratitude, on behalf of the cradle!

More photos, videos and other material is available on the Politeia Articles Blog.

The Plague of Pirates and Romantics: Arrrgh!

Military.Com: "Navy Gives Pirates Cause to Cry 'Argh'"

Somali pirates gave up control of two ships hijacked months earlier and U.S. Navy escorted the boats to safer waters Sunday as it stepped up efforts to bring security to the seas off the chaotic Horn of Africa nation.
The pirates climbed into small skiffs and headed back to Somalia after speaking by radio to U.S. naval personnel. A Navy ship and helicopter guided the South Korean-owned boats Mavuno 1 and 2 further out to sea.

It was the third time in a week the U.S. has intervened to help ships hijacked by Somali pirates. Sailors boarded a North Korean ship to give medical assistance to crew members who overpowered their hijackers, and a U.S. naval vessel fired on pirate skiffs tied to a Japanese-owned ship.

(Cmdr. Lydia Robertson of the U.S. Fifth Fleet in Bahrain) said the increase in U.S. military interventions was mostly due to the a surge in piracy. As the Navy moved ships into the area to respond to one incident, increased contact with other hijacked ships in the area was more likely, she said. "It's not that it's a change in focus," Robertson said. "But we had the opportunity to put some pressure on the pirates >>>

Forget romantic notions about the Revolution, Afghan warlords, latter-day Robin Hoods or piracy. Rather than the picture above, today's pirates come in shapes like this. Not unlike pirates, romanticists are equally a plague. Their tendency to reject the harsh light of reality tends them to look upon the facts of life from a skewed angle. Where decisive measures are required in perhaps preventing even worse, the romantic suggests options of sentimentality.

He does so, not out of empathy with the culprits, but out of consideration for what is the centre piece in his life, his own feelings. Easy scoring against some 'righteous soldier of truth' boosts his self-esteem in no mean measure and - not unimportant - it saves him the trouble of having to deal with the psychological blowback that comes with the territory of accepting responsibilities. Sentimentality actually, says the grandfather of psychology C.G. Jung, is a superstructure covering brutality. This is also philosophically correct, as I shall explain presently.

How romanticism has influenced religion is set out by David Klinghoffer in his book "Why the Jews Rejected Jesus". Besides spilling the beans on the real Judaic view on Jesus (it already being in the public domain for some time), he tells the story of Rabbi Baeck (1873-1956). This revered leader of German Jewry before World War II described how historical periods of moral rectitude since times immemorial have been alterated with epochs, dominated by "romantic tendency that revered not ethical action but emotional experience, that gauzy, swooning sensation of feeling and glorying in being personally 'saved'. This essentially Narcissistic, passive version of religion loves sacred music and wafting incense but can look with indifference on injustice and tyranny."

"By contrast, the Judaic classical counter-tendency thinks less about the self and more about the wrongs done by human beings and directs a focused passion to setting things right on earth. In Baeck's retelling of Christian history, the religion of the historical Jesus was classical while the apostle Paul's was romantic. The romantic and classical tendencies were balanced in the medieval church. With Luther's Reformation, the pendulum swung to the romantic side - which would explain how German Lutheranism could be so indifferent to Nazi violence. In his essay "Romantic Religion", Baeck was already writing on this theme in 1922!"

Germans seem to be in a constant peril in this respect, being described as "incurably romantic' by some authors attempting to capture European national traits in a few pointed words (or what a particular nation would do with a hammer). I can think of a few other tribes as well. I use the word 'tribe' with good cause: according to Justin Halter, blogging Professor of Comparative Religions, the admirer of totalitarianism may be justified in typifying his society of preference as 'tribal'.

Politics is no less subject to these pendulum swings of classical realism versus romanticism. The historical period of Romanticism can be traced back to Rousseau and the movement of Counter Enlightenment of which he was the originator. His idealistic picture of the Noble Savage simply drools unrealistic, romantic notions. The offloading of five of his children on the Paris orphanage tells the story of the innate brutality of the sentimentalist. Somehow it's the children that always suffer most.

It is the same Subjectivist (Relativist) rejection of the real world that is plaguing us today. Not only does it feed the delusion that objective reality does not exist, in the process it also ejects all notions of morality: good and evil do not exist in a make-believe personal cosmos in which everyone is right from his or her personal perspective. In today's terms we call this watershed between reality-based and the delusional the political right, and the political left side of the aisle, respectively.

Blurring the Border between Reality and Perception (2)

~ Continued from Part 1 ~

This is the second instalment in a series of posts on the effects of Postmodernism (Pomo, or cultural Marxism, or subjectivism, or relativism) on journalism and the MSM. To remind ourselves of the essence of the trouble: the deliberate fallacy of their pet philosophy that objective reality does not exist. This causes a blurring of the border between what's real, and what is perception: the recipe for a global nut-house!

One pernicious consequence of this fallacy is a moral one: the denial of good and bad, right of wrong, truth or lie, or to put it in another way: everybody's 'right' from his or her own particular point of view, and everything 'bad' is only called 'bad' because it doesn't fit into the present idea of what constitutes society (once the egalitarian collectivism is established even pedophilia will become a 'good' thing).

Read here that "Julien Benda, in his 1928 classic "La Trahison de Clercs", decried with prophetic accuracy how the abandonment of objective truths abetted (my emphasis) totalitarian ideologies, which led to the cataclysmic destruction of World War II. The author (Diana West in her new book "The Death of the Grown-Up") identifies the "Trahison de Clercs" of our time: The complete failure of Western intellectuals to acknowledge the heinous consequences of the living Islamic institutions of jihad war and dhimmitude." Actually I can go much further than that: the abandonment of objective truth is the essence of the philosophy that underpins totalitarian ideologies!

Another catastrophic consequence of this deliberate fallacy is, that fact - which is rooted in objective reality - does not exist either. That, is a tough conclusion if your occupation is, observation and description of facts on a daily basis, as is the case in journalism.

So what we see reported lately, aren't so much cool, detached descriptions of the real world, as much as the reporter's personal opinion, the 'narrative' from his perspective, which, as is often the case, happens to be multicultural and Leftist - or he wouldn't be a Pomo in the first place.

Aside ... unconsciously society at large has picked up much of Pomo's faulty thought processes. If in fear of being infected, the PMF offers help in finding out to what extent you've been affected: the list provides a number of eye-openers to get you back on orthologica. But a sure sign of trouble is "... in my view this colour is red, perhaps ...", instead of "... this, is red".

News reports from the Middle East have become synonymous with subjectivity: laced with personal (emotional) involvement (the BBC has become practically a party in Gaza!), spin and counterspin, political bias, censoring, selective emphasizing, etc., etc. Each and every death that occurs within Iraq's borders is brought to me personally, 'as it happens' by CNN's and the BBC's Breaking News Email Service, a lame effort in emphasizing the frequency and the number of casualties.

Lately we are informed that a 'paradigm shift' in the press' attitude towards Iraq may be in the making, reflecting a shift in public opinion (lies don't endure) and in the attitude of the Iraqis themselves.

There's hope yet, but it will be next to impossible to ween the lost souls of the anti-war crowd of their immature psychological coping devices. They much rather see all-out fratricide develop in Iraq resulting in another few million hecatombs on the sacrificial alter of collectivism (Vietnam is a case in point), than to accept a BusHitler victory for democracy and the advancement of freedom. At this point I'd like to venture a qualification of this mentality: pathologically malicious.

While that is going on, the editor of The New Republic had the gall to respond to the first questioning of the 'Baghdad Diarist's plausibility, by attacking the skeptics' motives, complaining that "some Conservatives make 'a living, denying any bad news that emanates from Iraq'", a chutzpah if there ever was one in light of the above, and as is made clear by Winds of Change's post "Man, People Are So Gullible...".

The shrink says it's a natural consequence of projection: if you think of yourself as a nice and peaceful person, while actually you are full of wrath and hatred, the psychological coping device of projection makes the object of your wrath the one that's hateful, divisive, full of vitriol and bile, bigotted, intolerant and hatemongering ... something like ... this! Hat tip Atlas Shrugs.

Sorry to disappoint those expecting neat little lists: it so happens they're all in Part 1 and 3.

~ Continued in Part 3: ... rummaging through my own recent archive yields not only ... the Beauchamp Affair, but also throws some other light on the Abu Graib affair, (a) "high quality disinformation operation" ~

The Betrayal of God: Destruction from Within!

Today, 15th August - the Celebration of the Assumption of the Virgin Mary - departing Bishop Muskens of the provincial Diocese of Breda in the southern Netherlands - is shocking us with a proposal for non Muslims to use the name of 'Allah' for God.

I have to give the reader fair warning: this is an interesting story if you're into it, but there are no abbreviations or short-cuts here.

The cleric's proposal is an education on a number of levels. At first sight his proposal isn't a contribution to 'the multicultural society' or a shot at syncretism, but rather a further step in the mono-cultural and mono-religious direction - of Islam, that is: a proposal to voluntarily give up the single most essential principle of Western culture, our name of God and all what that entails, presumably in exchange for .... what?

On an intellectual level the proposal is a typical Postmodern one: truth does not exist, all cultures/beliefs are equally valid. This ridiculous Marxist lie gives birth to the further fallacy, that everything under God's sky that shares a generic term, is by consequence 'the same'.

We touched on that yesterday, when we educated the Dutch in relation to the new Robert Spencer book "Religion of Peace? Why Christianity is and Islam isn't", that not all religions are 'the same'. Departing Bishop Muskens falls into the same trap with his proposal, which entails that Allah and God are fully synonymous and readily interchangeable.

Not being a theologian, it doesn't befit me to go into this very far, but obvious differences are that the Christian God is a threefold principle, who loves man, whom He created in His image, and - not without significance - is knowable, intelligible, which brings Natural Philosophy so far as to posit: the more Intelligible, the more Being.

Until Marxism taught us better by blessing us with minorities, this idea gave rise to the equality of all men - and by extension to human rights and democracy, to scientific enquiry (investigations into nature and the universe), and the idea - simply abhorred by Muslims and Postmoderns alike - that humanity progresses towards a teleological, predestined end game.

Allah on the other hand, is One and transcendental, flighty and chaotic, and is basically unknowable to us poor humans, who are His playthings, to dispose over as He sees fit.

An investigative short cut to Bishop Muskens relevant Wikipedia entry learns he didn't attend seminary. Well, it figures - also in relation to a number of things he has said in the past - he does seem to suffer from an intellectual lacuna which plays tricks on him at crucial times.

A few years ago the Red Bishop gave us the first shock, in admitting - in reference to wars and genocide - he has a problem with Christianity, stemming from the apparent existence of evil and injustice in the world. To him it doesn't follow that Goodness cannot even exist in the absence of Evil.

Catholic Scholasticism, which gave us Natural Philosophy (or Moral Law - Pope Benedict XVI is at present working on a popular re-introduction) is taught at seminaries, and teaches human voluntarism or free will, rendering such miseries not mischievous Acts of God, but simply the result of human action.

If men hadn't free will, how can we possibly come to any moral decisions? This lays the basis for the idea, that the only natural environment for man, is liberty. This being the reason why mentally and emotionally mature people prefer freedom over Statism and Collectivism.

Those ideas obviously aren't part of the Red Bishop's theological tool kit. The cleric has made a habit out of transmitting the wrong message. A few years back, at the time of an economic downturn, he came up with the morally deplorable missive that it is "okay for the poor to steal a loaf of bread".

That was probably not what he literally said - and apparently it is part of Catholic morality provided the choice is misappropriation or starvation - but in a rich country like the Netherlands where dying of hunger isn't an issue, his words in practice meant that it was acceptable to defraud the state, if that could get you a social security benefit.

So now we are faced with the Bishop's proposal of dhimmitude. Reactions to his words are mixed, but it figures that the chairman of the Dutch Muslim Council "has no problem with it" and that the difference between the two is "in the details"; I dare say that - seen from the perspective of a sterile religion, the scientific approach to Creation, liberty and human rights, might seem mere details - they are however the essential substance of Western existence!

That bastion of Marxist Catholicism, the peace movement Pax Christi, thinks the proposal is 'worth further deliberation in such polarizing times' (that's probably after they've gotten over the regret, they haven't thought of it themselves!).

The site of the Diocese of Breda goes into historical, linguistic and cultural detail [1] and it is of course very reassuring to read that 'Allah' has really very little to do with Muslims, Islam or the Koran, as this name of God already existed before the Islamic conquest. But that explanation begs the question, what then - for crying out loud - is the meaning of the proposal in the first place?

To placate the Copts and other 'oriental Christians' so that they don't take to the Arab streets, shouting Hell and Brimstone over some perceived grievances, while committing arson and murder in the process? What a load of BS!

The poison has been in the bloodstream for decades: after Red Catholicism and Liberation Theology, thank Heaven! we've got dhimmitude as a vehicle to destroy the Roman Church from within (see Chart II: the Subversion Program).

Red Bishop Muskens is about to join a monastery to spend the last days of his activist life growing giant cauliflowers, or brewing monastic ale, or perhaps playing a significant role in the production of traditional monastic cheese, but I dare say - for Catholicism his goodbye doesn't come a moment too soon. At least Pope Benedict XVI will have one relativist element less to deal with.

The clarification on the site of the Diocese of Breda concludes with the assertion that if Muslims and Christians address God with the same name, "this contributes to harmonious living together." I posit that quite the opposite is the case, and that it would be far better if - instead of proposals to merge - we would engage in actions of mutuality and respect.

Bees Pee Upon Them All!

Of Pomo's Evangelical Friends!

The plight of the latest contingent of Postmodern 'victims' is such, that I will drop everything else: from the particulars of Postmodern language skills, to the third way Socialists' personal relationship with a viper's nest in the Balkans, and the question why the Germans cannot seem to shake the safety of collectivism, the lot!

The latest Postmodern (Pomo in Pomo lingo) cohort concerns a branch of American Evangelical Christians who describe themselves as Vanguard, Emergent or Emerging Church. Although they don't realize it yet, Submerging, is more like it!

I don't propose to go very deep into the matter. For one, I am no expert on Evangelism, American or otherwise. As far as Postmodernism is concerned, I have written about it ad nauseam and have already given it far more attention than this vile heap of devil's dung warrants.

I am usually merciless in the face of Pomo, considering:

- its origins: the Counter-Enlightenment movement, as exemplified by Rousseau, Nietzsche, Karl Marx c.s., etc.);

- the content: a Carnival of Fallacies! Subjectivism, Relativism, and by extension totalitarian tendencies as displayed by multiculturalism and political correctness;

- the aim: destruction of Western civilization in analogy with Rousseau's and Marx' 'narratives' of Oppressed versus The Great Oppressor, the latter personified by the archetypal "White Patriarch";

- the means: the self-proclaimed nobility of the end, literally justifies ANY, Any means, and that includes wars and terror, revolution and pestilence, but also destruction from within (the present is a typical example of that tactic).

Since however I am to understand that among these Emergents is a group of honestly misguided, good-willing Christians, let me address them in the appropriate fashion as made famous by C. of E. author C.S. Lewis, correspondence between two of Satan's scions, a letter from old Uncle Screwtape to his young nephew Wormwood, demon in waiting. I call my interlocutors, Uncle Pomo and Nephew Relativo.

Dear Relativo, dear boy,

I am so very proud of your surprising success in turning the tables on the Guys of the Other Side, so that some of their people are now working on our cause (see for example here, here and here), even if they don't know it yet. What a shocker that will be, once the penny drops that they're on our payroll!

It is so delightfully ironic that it's exactly His People you have been able to enlist with the help of our Unique Selling Propositions (USPs). The very delusion, that there isn't one set of Rules for everyone, no Right, no Wrong, Truth nor Lie, is of course the very opposite of what The Great Adversary and His Son have proclaimed, but as long as they don't realize the mutual exclusiveness of the two positions, we will have them working on our side!

I think we got them hooked when they became recalcitrant over all the science, technology and reason as promoted by the free-thinkers. Those years were tough going for us, as humanity got hold of all kinds of stuff that's good for them, from water-closets to vaccines.

Until I myself, as a young student, graduated on the idea of getting our Soviet servants to drop the idea in the West, that morality is outdated and that The Great Adversary is really The Great White Oppressor. From then on things started moving again. Enlisting the faithful was sheer brilliance on your part, Relatibble!

I must admit I've had my moments of doubt, when you allowed adversaries like Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason, In Plain Site's Todd Kappelman, and David Klinghoffer of the Claremont Institute to debunk our USPs: I nearly had a fit when that Koukl guy explained there are hardly any proper relativists, since you'd have to be an amoral sociopath to actually be one! We must safeguard our USP for Counter-Enlightenment Christians, for example the advantage of no longer having to deal with reason, but give free reign to basic instincts and emotions, what they perceive to be a postal service for messages from The Old Guy! For us there's the sheer beauty of bringing our agenda to the people, without having to conform to laws of nature as old drools like Aquenobnox ... Aquinas demanded - the oppressive regulations of nature that our Great Adversary in His Unmeasurable Wisdom has set out.

The subtle trick is to make them believe those laws are just for one group of people, and that other people live in another reality and have another set of natural rules and regulations. The satanic shrewdness of the plot lies in the infernal idea that our people believe, they're doing good to the whole of humanity: fighting for poor and oppressed groups against the all-powerful Great Advers ... White Oppressor, while in fact there is no such fight going on at all, the Old Man disgustingly loving all of these vile creatures equally; no matter what their contribution to our cause might have been, he'll forgive, if asked sincerely enough. But as long as our people believe they're in the Epic Struggle, and we can prolong this delightful confusion of ideas, we are on hot charcoal!

I am aware you are working on ways to convince also other groups of our USPs. I think you are right to work first on dulling the brain cells with daily bombardments on the exploits of victims that have gone before them: young, dumb, blond relativists who have already taken leave of their senses and are unable to distinguish right from wrong. It is not just the example that does the trick, as much as the ceaseless repetition that convinces the viewer this is the real state of affairs, and if he or she doesn't follow, they are out of the human loop.

Let me make you a recapitulation of the present progress with the following groups. I suggest you convince them for starters that our USPs aren't our agenda, but that it somehow is a trend, a Zeitgeist, a natural consequence of this stage of human development, and therefore unavoidable. Alternatively, pretend it's a historical period: the epoch after modernism, or something similarly vacuous. That'll keep 'em off the scent, and set us on the right course for years to come.

I'm sure you now see the virtues of the tactic to first enlist the intelligentsia, academics and especially the media who now serve as our faithful mouthpiece. Here goes:

- the business side of things: marketeers and consumers;

- forensic scientists: a measure of success;

- legal experts: proud of this one, promising field of operations! Here you see evidence that people side with us, even against their own better judgments, simply because they believe we may have solutions to problems they cannot solve! This one - so many years after the ascend of great uncle Kinsey - still labours under the oppressive social construct that pederasm is unnatural!

- amateur literary critics: not much joy there;

- bloggers: just a reminder, keep a watchful eye on the blegosphere;

- philosophers: who cares?

- theologians: keep working on that one!

- culture: faithful minions, safe-house;

- youth culture: here matters get real hot, as youth means the future; we must never forget to safeguard the next generation of relativists;

- parents and pedagogues: education is indoctrination, very important!

Keep up the evil work!
Your ever hating Uncle, Pomo.

The Marxist Revival (3): All Purpose Invective

~ Continued from Part 2: The Marxist Revival: The Epic Narrative ~

In Part 1 "The Lie at the Bottom" we saw that at the base of the covert strategy for spreading neo Marxist thought lurks the basic fallacy of the Primacy of Consciousness, or Subjectivism, or Relativism [1].

On a tactical level we find language, which to Postmoderns, signifies something entirely different than it does traditionally: it could be best described as rhetoric, characterised by gross generalisation, ludicrous equation and massive exaggeration, often giving quite another meaning to the word chutzpah: anything goes really, however aggressive and unreasonable. This approach can eventually be alternated with infantile, sentimental whining, or emotional manipulation and blackmail. As we have seen, given the Universal All Importance and the Nobility of The Cause, anything goes.

To Postmoderns language is not about the transfer of information related to reality, objective data flowing from one person to another. To Subjectivists language at best perhaps communicates the speaker's personal version of 'reality'.

All that is written ought to be in quotes and inverted commas, signifying the 'irony' with which any 'meaning' should be taken.

The spoken word is just personal bla-bla. You could set yourself the task of discovering what the speaker means to convey by his choice of words (deconstruction), but underneath that layer of bla-bla we would only find more personal, subjective yada-yada, a sheer endless process of deconstruction would have to take place.

Hicks in "Explaining Postmodernism": "There is no non-linguistic standard by which to distinguish between the literal and the metaphorical, the true and the false. Deconstruction is therefore in principle an unending process ... accordingly, Postmodernism recasts the nature of rhetoric: rhetoric is persuasion in the absence of cognition ... not to prove or disprove anything."

In other words: in the absence of objective reality, orators by any means possible try to persuade an audience of their personal version of reality. In yet another way: speech is rhetoric, is propaganda, is populism, is sophistry, is demagoguery in which reality and truth are subjective, and lies and fallacies are just another personal opinion.

Although Rorty was a notable exception, most Postmoderns see conflicts between groups as unavoidable (see above) and - after Rousseau, Nietzsche and Schopenhauer - in the absence of God as the Prime Mover, it is that which generates change and growth.

It does makes you wonder about the sincerety of all that talk of peace, non-violence and anti war: would that perhaps be the same logic by which Islam makes the distinction between the Dar-al-Harb and the Dar-al-Islam? War is absence of hegemony?

Given that fateful conflict, Postmoderns see and use language primarily as a weapon, which - apart from Koukl's Passive-Aggressive Tolerance Trick acting out on innocents and on misguided bystanders alike - explains the often unreasonable and intolerant nature of the debate with Postmoderns: from expletives to ad hominem attacks, rhetorical catch-as-catch-can wrestling - the catchwords being effect and proselytizing by any possible means - not by arguments or through persuasion, but by intellectual parlour tricks, sophistry and personal intimidation. No rules as practiced by the Debating Society, and certainly no quest for truth.

As crypto Marxist thought and Postmoderm abuse of language covertly insert itself in the various walks of life - from television talk shows to new approaches to 'intractable' problems in academia: from meta-psychology to forensic ethics and the judiciary - we'll devote a number of posts to this interesting subject.

~ To be continued: Part 4: The Marxist Revival: The Assault of Free Speech, "Many have wondered: what's with the gross hyperbole, the unreasonable generalizations, from the downright insulting to the quasi baby-talk? "All hetero-sexual males are rapists", "Zionists are Nazis", "History is one wave of ethnic cleansing after another" ~

The Marxist Revival (2): the Epic Narrative

~ Continued from The Marxist Revival (1): The Lie at the Bottom ~

"... But stay awake now, if you must
My story’s just beginning.
For out of wars come revolutions
And the masses now were winning .."

That piece of mad poetry called "Back to the Future" from the site that can only be termed An Ode To Karl Marx, should be taken seriously: just like Al Zawahiri M.D. assures us again and again he is just seeking the global Khalifate that has been on the cards since the eighth century, succeeded up to a point (north Africa, Middle and Near East) and failed on a number of other occasions (Al Andalus, Tours, Vienna), the Marxist international revolution has also not given up with the crumbling of a mere wall, or just one branch (economy) of the total theory being discredited.

The pathological poem has affirmed my suspicion of a strategy of setting the Muslim branch of the Unholy Alliance on the capitalist West in an endeavour to erect the long aspired International on its ruins. To the Postmodern nihilists and the KGB ideologically demoralised usefuls it's all the same anyway: bell tower or minaret, souk or market, whatever ... one act of treason in the good cause is as good as another.

In reaction to the last botched Jihadi attacks by 'the doctors' on London and Glasgow last week bourgeois shock and outrage have been expressed over physicians unethically acting against the Hippocratic oath. Dr Sanity has an interesting analysis on the psychological level. Whatever there may be said about the Hippocratic Oath being considered outmoded and outdated (of course), or Muslims having their own vows in that respect (of course), is a measure of how little is understood of the Counter-Enlightenment branch of philosophy.

Yes, there is a war on - but more importantly and fundamentally, let me repeat: Counter-Enlightenment philosophies - apart from them all having A Global Ideal Worth Dying For - are Collectivist, are Anti Realism and Reason, Socialist, Subjectivist (relativist), have socially constructed 'narratives' or themes of whatever Oppressed group(s) versus a common Oppressor, and don't balk at the use of politically (or religiously) justified violence under the guideline of The Noble End Justifies Any Means (see chart II: The Straight Red Line).

Does that sound like people tending to suffer scruples over ethics, of acting against a pre Liberal (archaic) Hippocratic Oath? On the contrary, it may even encourage them, as having made a personal, solemn sacrifice to the Collective Ideal.

Today a number of pop concerts under the catching title Live Earth is under way, spread strategically all over the face of the earth: Tokio, Sydney, New York, Washington, London, Amsterdam, Johannesburg, Rio de Janeiro, Shanghai and Hamburg. Istanbul has been cancelled for lack of funds and interest, while on Antarctica a group of 'scientists' makes a contribution against their own profession by taking up musical instruments in a dilettante act of symbolism, thereby securing project funding for years to come.

The aim of the series of events - according to the organisers, among others Al Gore and actress Cameron Diaz - is to raise awareness about glowball warming. The multicultural kitch is living evidence that environmentalism goes hand in hand with the narrative of Rousseau's noble savage.

Let's translate this along the Straight Red Line guidelines: the whole project lives and breaths Subjectivism (Primacy of Consciousness - see Part 1) and Collectivism. As the atmospheric condition itself, the movement is universal in character, transcending the mere national state. It's dictatorial tendencies are betrayed by the silencing, stone-walling and demonisation of dissenters.


It is directed against the common Oppressor: capitalism (industry, free trade), reason (science and technology) and by extension the archetypal wanton, white, wicked patriarch of the West who's grasping, self-serving activities are the cause of all these problems, for which the Oppressed Subjectivist minority groups now pay the price.

The global devastation's affecting the whole of oppressed humanity and every other living creature on the face of the planet. It carries high grade 'original sin' as "all animals, including us" produce the vilified CO2. Thank Gaia we can buy that guilt off by paying environmental taxes and by offering other minor personal libations and sacrifices.

The frightening thing is, what used to be an immature pet project on the fringes of popular culture, with the baby boomers moving into government it has become official policy of a compulsory nature. If there ever was a Cause to warrant world wide control, this is it!

Update: The Live Earth event is, in the words of one commentator: "a massive, hypocritical fraud."

~ To be continued in Part 3 The Marxist Revival: All Purpose Invective - On a tactical level we find language, which to Postmoderns, signifies something entirely different than it does traditionally ~

The Marxist Revival (1): the Lie at the Bottom

While to some Libertarians politics at times may seem an exciting game for adults, to the Collective Left the Cause of the Oppressed is never a relative matter: to them it's a deadly serious affair, quite literately so.

Since Communism failed, the words are heard no more. Only rarely apologetics abound, as are belated memorials to the approximate 110 million victims, whereas trivialization is never far off. Occasionally common roots are laid bare.

De-Marxification isn't common practice in the sense that de-Nazification and de-Baathification were; there is an euphemistic term: 'lustrations', taunted by crypto adherents and hapless MSM as 'pogroms' or 'witch hunts' in a way that prosecution of Nazis and the Pinochets of this world, would be unthinkable. Clearly a case of double standard, but then who would be mad enough to speak up for the Collective Socialist Right? It doesn't earn points with the usefuls like the defense of the Leftist variety.

The three generations of Western students of the baby boom and after that were ideologically subverted by the KGB, haven't dissolved into thin air: they keep themselves occupied with pushing the Cause by other strategies and proceed covertly, going under an epithet of something cryptic like Postmoderns: Multiculturalists, Deconstructionists, and other higher branches of Leftist thought, as Critical Theorists at university language departments, or some other form of Marxist Hermetics.

Surprisingly - just when everyone had forgotten, some 15 years since the collapse of communism at the hand of the Mujaheddin, or so they claim - we are at present experiencing a bit of a revival that regretfully very few people recognize for what it is.

Postmodern philosophy - starting from Rousseau - is based on one very fundamental lie, that is as immature as is opportune. Let me ask you this: is a baby born, already fully aware and self-conscious, thinking - say, at what age shall I first light up - or is the boot on the other foot and comes awareness considerable time after birth, a child being initially quite the solipsist?

I think most sane people will argue the latter. Not so our Counter-Enlighteners, among whom we find the current crypto Marxist Postmoderns (see Chart I, The Straight Red Line). They hold the former view, what I term the Master of the Universe fallacy (PMF number 13), and Ayn Rand calls the 'primacy of consciousness' (as opposed to the 'primacy of existence': first you are, then you become aware, not vice versa).

This subjective idea [1] was first coined so that the existence of God could be averted, but it also comes in handy when occasionally someone attempts to rationalize an irrational Ideology. Its logical consequence is, you see, that no such thing as one single, objective reality, valid for everyone in the Cosmos, exists. Your own particular version of reality depends on who you are (class, race, culture, etc.), and where you are.

Enter subjective minority groups with a common victimhood to be compensated in proportion to their perceived inequality, enter Relativism, enter cultural Marxism, also known as Multiculturalism: Reality or The Truth does not exist, all ideas, cultures, religions being equally valid, except of course all that are based on "the white, rich, Christian, male narrative" because that is exactly what the struggle is directed against: the quintessential archetype of the authoritarian, dogmatic, Indo-European patriarch, whose less admirable side of the historical track record is currently abused to cultivate the demoralizing habit of Occidental self-loathing.

It is a critical fallacy that runs through all Postmodern and Counter-Enlightenment thought (see Chart I The Straight Red Line for the common characteristics, for example Anti Reason). Ideas have consequences, George Weigel famously asserted; it certainly has, for 110 million fatalities.

But I'll let you in on a closely guarded secret: the whole thing is a ruse to fool and confuse the really usefuls; the top Postmodern elite, like the former Polit Bureau members, are not so relativised as to start believing their own lies. Call it a strategy of deep level misinformation to provide rational support for the irrational Ideology.

The lofty Aim, the noble Cause justifies any means, you see - and how else can you hope to whip the complacent, lazy masses into action? One poetic Marxist lifts a tip of the niqaab, a hot contender for the miraculous existence of the Unholy Alliance with Radical Islam, to have another crack at Revived Revolution!

"... But stay awake now, if you must
My story’s just beginning.
For out of wars come revolutions
And. the masses now were winning .."

~ To be continued in Part 2, The Marxist Revival: The Epic Narrative ~

The Straight Red Line (7): Plotting against The West

~ Continued from the Part 6: the Collective ~

We have now established and asserted the Straight Red Line of the Counter-Enlightenment movement, as described by Stephen Hicks in "Explaining Postmodernism", running from the anti-Reason Collectivism of Rousseau, the Relativist Subjectivism [1] of the German philosophers of Romanticism (Kant, Fichte, Hegel, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche), the Totalitarian Socialism of the Nazis on the Right side (Heidegger, Spengler), and Communists on the Left (Marx, Engels), through to Islam inspired terrorism, and the irrational European terror groups as the Bader Meinhoff c.s., on to the contemporary animal rights anti-globals and their organized rioting, topped up by the Postmodern Relativist thinkers in the Marx tradition: Foucault, Lyotard, Derrida, Marcuse and Rorty. The Postmodern movement includes branches of Feminism, Multiculturalism and Environmentalism.

The implication of the1984 revelation of former KGB agent and Soviet defector Yuri Alexandrovich Bezmenov that the KGB had been subverting three generations of Western students from 1968 onwards (if not before) (see other posts in this series), combined with the above pedigree of Subjective and violence prone philosophy, lays bare the origins of radical political Islam and explains the - at first glance - inexplicable attraction of that movement and Postmodern Leftism. (See Chart I to follow the Straight Red Line.)

I suggest wrapping up the series with more revelations about the group's mutual attraction and admiration, detailing the joint plans for the destruction of the Liberal, modern West, and then move on to further detailed analysis of the Unholy Alliance's strategy of misinformation, demoralization and subversion.

Melanie Phillips, author of "Londonistan" in an article posted on 18th May, "Liberalism v. Islamism" (aggregated to American Diplomacy) confirms Theodore Dalrymple's analysis of Islam being hopelessly and fatally insecure. Faced with an intractable dilemma - to abandon the faith which was supposed to bring glory and salvation, but instead has condemned Muslims to the backwater of humanity - or embrace modernity, acquiring with it the power that results from free enquiry: progress, knowledge and science. He holds that like all people when faced with an intractable dilemma, they lash out. Hence their accusation that is barely understood in the West, that they are 'under siege' by the ever expanding Liberal culture.

Melanie Phillips: "The driving force behind the Islamic Jihad is the fight against Liberalism and modernity. All the iconic conflicts ... are secondary to the fundamental aim of the Jihad to prevent Liberalism and modernity from destroying Islam." But Liberalism just wants to be left in peace without Sharia Law being foist upon it, a plea that regretfully falls on deaf Jihadi ears.

Underscoring the thesis of the Straight Red Line, Phillips describes how - more or less coinciding with the KGB's activities of the perversion of Liberalism by subjecting it to unrelated, Narcissistic, pathological ideas and behavior - the Muslim Brotherhood proposed to destroy Liberalism before it would infect the Islamic world, and to replace it with Islam through the pincer movement of both terrorism and cultural takeover.


This plan allegedly was laid out in a program of subversion in 1978 when the Organisation of the Islamic Conference sponsored a seminar in London which said, Muslim communities in western countries must establish autonomous institutions with help from Muslim states, and lobby the host country to grant Muslims recognition as a separate religious community, a step towards eventual political domination.

The plot is confirmed by a book published in 1980 by Khuram Murad, titled "The Islamic Movement in the West", and affirmed by a Muslim Brotherhood document seized in Switzerland in 2001, known as ‘The Project’, outlining a twelve-point strategy to 'establish an Islamic government on earth'.

At the time I have derided Hoover Institution Fellow and Townhall columnist, Dinesh d'Souza for siding with Islam against our fellow Western ideology, Liberalism. I haven't read his book "The Enemy at Home", but a gist article "It's the Culture, Stupid" can be found on Townhall, making the point that Islam has a problem with the amoral side of permissive Liberalism specifically, not with the West as a whole.

Today's Liberalism of course is not what it originally set out to be when the philosophy first developed during the Enlightenment. In fact, it has become its very opposite. Indeed, it bears all the characteristics of the Counter-Enlightenment: anti Reason, Collectivism, Relativist Subjectivism, victimhood. I posit that this well known process of 'usurp, pervert and destroy' was carried out by the KGB subversives in an effort to rob the West of its morals, the process of de-moral-ization. Now that the move towards depravity and decadence is more or less complete, the Unholy Alliance by Phillips' pincer movement is ready for the cultural takeover.

I disagree however with Phillips' conclusion - which is in keeping with mainstream opinion - that rampant individualism is a logical consequence of the philosophy of Liberalism, the Classical version, that is. In the post "The Mill Paradigm" I explained that John Stuart Mill's tenet of personal autonomy has been gravely violated by Leftist Liberalism. What is usually criticised as amoral individualism, is most of the time caused by a pathological condition called Narcissism, and has absolutely nothing to do with Classical Liberalism.

It is however at home in Leftist Liberalism, born of the KGB ideological demoralization program, literally to rid the West of notions of right and wrong, good and bad, by injecting Counter-Enlightenment thought into the system that holds that Reality does not exist, rendering these moral principles null and void. The result is all around us.

I dare now safely say, that all conspired to atomise Western culture from within: demoralized and confused to the core by pathological ideologies, it is upto Jihadism to deliver the coup de grâce. In case anyone would object that this scenario will destroy Left Liberalism as well, I can tell you they are but usefuls in the hands of the Postmoderns, who would like nothing better than to obliterate the naked, irrational, grasping ape of a man from the face of the earth entirely.

Hicks: "Postmodern thinkers inherit an intellectual tradition that has seen the defeat of all of its major hopes ... For those opposed to the Enlightenment, the modern world has offered no comfort ... Science .... generated nuclear bombs and super-bacilli. And the confidence in the power of reason [has] been revealed to be a fraud ... [from the] postmodern perspective the universe has been ... shattered ... But there was always Socialism ... the order that would transcend everything and create the beautiful, collectivist society. The failure of Left politics to achieve that vision was merely the last straw".

If Hicks is right, Postmoderns are beyond caring.

I have prepared the beginnings of a inventory (Chart II), detailing the advance of the 'program' as pertaining to the various spheres of activity. I do invite and would greatly appreciate active commenting, critique or whatever the reader may think to contribute. Thanks!